Talk:James Robb (pathologist)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Work in progress
editThis is a work in progress about a pathologist who meets the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. I will be expanding it and getting better references over the next few hours. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. I expect to have much better/secondary sources soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please do. In the meantime, removed some unreliably sourced content and added a notability tag. Dtunkelang (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Dtunkelang, I believe he does meet the notability criteria, namely criterion #1 at WP:NACADEMIC. That criterion says “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline”. This is usually judged by the degree to which their published work has been cited by other scholars. In Dr. Robb’s case that impact can be seen here: [1] That's just his coronavirus work; publications on another subject can be seen here [2]. This article on yet another subject [3], cited 306 times in other papers, also appears to be by him based on the affiliations listed (first Yale, then NIH). I had to search by specific subjects; I can't do a valid general name search on Google Scholar because there are many other authors named James Robb. But these publications alone should qualify him under NACADEMIC. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I agree and am removing the notability tag. Dtunkelang (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)1
- Dtunkelang, I believe he does meet the notability criteria, namely criterion #1 at WP:NACADEMIC. That criterion says “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline”. This is usually judged by the degree to which their published work has been cited by other scholars. In Dr. Robb’s case that impact can be seen here: [1] That's just his coronavirus work; publications on another subject can be seen here [2]. This article on yet another subject [3], cited 306 times in other papers, also appears to be by him based on the affiliations listed (first Yale, then NIH). I had to search by specific subjects; I can't do a valid general name search on Google Scholar because there are many other authors named James Robb. But these publications alone should qualify him under NACADEMIC. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please do. In the meantime, removed some unreliably sourced content and added a notability tag. Dtunkelang (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Photograph = mugshot? Links to social media pages, or his own blog or other website?
editIs he on Facebook or Twitter? At least in February 2020 he claims he wasn't:
"It was my email to my family and close friends ONLY. Someone put it on their Facebook page. It was intended to be a monologue – not a dialogue. I do not use any social media and may have been too naive about what “sharing” means today".
The most interesting tip he gave was for zing lozenges. Cold-Eeze is one brand of it:
Use as directed. Lie down and let the lozenge dissolve in the back of your throat.
Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zinc-lozenges-coronavirus/